Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lastfutures wrote

I thought this was quite good. I don't know who this author is, but I'm not sure I get what the implications of the last two paragraphs are. For me, the response to the analysis is an anti-civ one - destroying technological infrastructure is anti-fascist - but I don't know what the author means by defeating these simulations.

3

ruin wrote

I read this as antisocial, but I always end up in an anticiv place afterwards.

I took the defeat of simulations as alluding to an ongoing rejection and therefore destruction of all aspects of society (consumption/production/desire) that reinforce the simulations. The mention in the final paragraph of destituency ties this to a rejection of power in a more broad and complete sense.

Hadn’t read any of their work before, but gave me Tiqqun vibes and a touch of nostalgia.

2

lastfutures wrote

Yes it's definitely in that vein; tiquun, ill will, IC, hostis, etc. It's just strange to me because it's not clear to me that the answer being given isn't better simulation, non-fascist simulation or something. They wouldn't use those words of course, but still. In short, does the rejection of power for them still involve mass society?

3

rot wrote

Is 'simulation' being used as a synonym for culture here? if not how is a simulation different from a subculture?

2

Vulgar_Soda wrote

I think the author is attempting to make a connection between subcultures and the online echo chambers that sustain them. What I got from the piece was this idea that people can and do live in alternate realities, hoisted up by an endless stream of "content" from the internet.

2

rot wrote

ok thank you. that makes sense if the "simulation" is a cultivated worldview and the media that supports it rather than a social factor

3